Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (52986)	7/16/2002 4:18:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How? How can a reference to "under God" possibly be considered as not establishing religon as a State value? I think we are using the phrase "an establishment of religion" differently. Having religious phrases recited publicly in a government owned building is not sufficient to be "an establishment of religion". Even the 9th circuit's decision didn't relied on the idea that the children are compelled by the pressure of having the class recite the pledge. While I would not call that an unreasonable idea, I also think it can be reasonably argued that there is no actual compulsion and no establishment of religion in this case. You seem to believe that God and relgion are separate and unrelated concepts. No I believe nothing even vaguely similar to that. I am not questioning the involvement of religion but whether or not in amounts to an establishment of religion. I maintain that the question is not so easily and unassailably settled as your earlier posts would seem to indicate. I seem to have confused you rather than clarified matters. I did not mean to suggest that tomorrow or Wednesday or Sunday...everything stable and reliable in American society will come to a grinding halt. My comments were intended to emphasise that, without a legal basis for freedom of religion, this absence of religious freedom eventually will impact the Institution of Democracy. Before this decision, after it (if it stands), and after it is overturned (if this happens), there will still be a legal basis for freedom of religion. Including the freedom to have no religion or as some people would say "freedom from religion". I think there is a decent chance that the supreme court will overturn this, but I also think it will be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision, and it represents about as far as the court will allow. Anything further then this (like an actual requirement to recite the pledge with the "under God" words or financial assistance to a religiously affiliated institution used for religious purposes, or religious instruction and indoctrination in public schools, or delegation of decision making to religious institutions) would be struck down by the supreme court. Also other countries that don't have something like the establishment clause of the first amendment are very free. I would not want to get rid of this clause, I think it is a useful protection for religious freedom, however I don't think it is a prerequisite for religious freedom. Does Canada have a law or constitutional clause that forbids any entanglement between government and religion. I don't think it does but I have been unable to find good evidence one way or the other on a quick google search. I expect that you know the answer to that question. In any case I know their our European countries with nothing like the establishment clause that are still very free and democratic, if the lack of this type of legal protection is harmful to their institution of democracy, it now seems to be a minimal harm. Tim